1. OS SLD Guidance: An Overview Presentation Oakland Schools Updated June 2012

2. Find our Website: www.oakland.k12.mi.us/sld The OS SLD Guidance document is bookmarked and searchable. All links are live!

3. The OS SLD Guidance Document & FAQ was designed to: 1. Provide background information and context regarding the current state SLD classification. 2. Outline the critical requirements of the IDEA Federal Regulations. 3. Provide examples of how to operationalize the regulations consistent with the direction from the USDOE and MDE. The OS SLD Guidance document is not and has never intended to be specific procedures nor to mandate an approach or single methodology for SLD identification across the county.

4. This document recognizes the work of:  The MAASE SLD workgroup  Wayne RESA  Kalamazoo RESA  Kent ISD  Ottawa Area ISD  Our 20 stakeholders from Oakland County from 14 districts.  Numerous people from individual districts across the state who offered feedback during the drafting of this document.

5. Purpose of the OS Document  The purpose of this document is both to assist districts in complying with all state rules and federal regulations regarding SLD, and to encourage districts to make a long-term plan for reshaping identification practices.  The intended audience for this document includes special education directors and supervisors, and the MET representatives who have a role in developing district procedures for the identification of a SLD.

6. What sense do you make of this data? 33.3% Oakland County Average 6

7. Local Districts in Oakland County As of 9/20/10 PSWRTICombination PSW and RTI Avondale Rochester Berkley Royal Oak Birmingham Southfield Bloomfield Troy Brandon Walled Lake Clawson Waterford Clarkston West Bloomfield Farmington Ferndale Hazel Park Holly Huron Valley Lake Orion Lamphere Oak Park Novi Pontiac South Lyon Oxford Clarenceville Madison The majority of our districts declared using PSW as part of their SLD eligibility decision as they did not have a fully implemented model. Districts are attempting to build infrastructure toward RTI to use as part of the eligibility decision for SLD which was central to the guidance that we provided.

8. Oakland Schools Timeline DateActions September 20101 st Stakeholder meeting at Oakland Schools October 20102 nd Stakeholder meeting at Oakland Schools Oct-Nov 2010Draft initial document; Internal reviews and external reviews Dec 2010Released Draft Document Jan 201130-day public comment period; open call for secondary stakeholders Feb 20113 rd Stakeholder review/revision ; 1 st Secondary Stakeholder Review March 20114 th Stakeholder review/revision; 2 nd Secondary Stakeholder Review April- May 2011Revision, additions (ELL, reevaluation), FAQ June-July 2011Final editing; Graphics and Print Production for layout August 2011Roll-out of SLD Guidance, FAQ and Website

9. Oakland Schools Perspective  A hallmark of SLD is that the low achievement is both unexpected and uncommon.  SLD exists on a continuum of severity, and any established cut-point is essentially arbitrary. SLD, however, clearly represents the lower end of the achievement distribution, and is characterized by varying degrees of severity.  The manifestation of SLD is influenced by the complex interactions of variables within the instructional environment.

10.  Cognitive processing deficits have been linked to some SLD areas. Specific cognitive processes correlated with SLD areas other than reading are not well understood.  There is little evidence that the presence of cognitive processing deficits supports the conclusion that the difficulty in achievement is neurobiological in origin as a SLD is an integration of environmental and biological factors. Therefore, using cognitive processing constructs for use in eligibility determination has proven troublesome and remains questionable.  Part of an evaluation for SLD identification requires information about a student’s response to instruction in order to assess if environmental (experiential) and instructional deficits (lack of appropriate instructional opportunity) are the cause of the student’s inadequate achievement. Oakland Schools Perspective

11. Oakland Schools Approach to Operationalizing RtI and PSW See OS SLD Guidance page 1.6-1.7 Evaluating response to scientific, research-based intervention  Defining RtI was focused on how districts may evaluate a student’s response to scientific, researched-based intervention; not on developing the entire RtI system.  We emphasized using a variety of reliable and valid assessment tools to describe the student’s present level of academic performance, relevant academic discrepancies, and assess alterable variables that reflect the instructional environment. Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Option  Defined PSW in an instructionally-based manner that allows the MET to begin to incorporate the principles of RtI into every comprehensive evaluation.  This represents a shift away from focusing on assessment of global IQ and cognitive processing and moves towards an analysis of intra-achievement patterns and instructional/environmental variables as a central consideration.

12. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria

13. Key Ideas in OS Guidance: Defined what types of measures can be used to determine inadequate achievement differentiated from PSW Defined both the criteria for expected performance and for determining a severe academic deficit. See OS SLD Guidance p. 4.5

15. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria Key Ideas in OS Guidance: Provided a chart with Indicators of Appropriate Instruction that include sources for documentation consistent with the view of using multiple strategies in multiple domains. Also, provided suggestions on what to do if you do not have the information. (See OS SLD Guidance page 5.8) Provided two examples of data used to document appropriate instruction (See OS SLD Guidance p. 5.6-5.7)

18. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria Key Ideas in OS Guidance: Provided four examples of insufficient progress (See OS SLD Guidance 6.8- 6.11) Provided nine steps for determining response that can be used as integrity checks including (See OS SLD Guidance 6.12-6.18): Parent notification Intervention characteristics Establishing measureable goals Use of valid and reliable progress monitoring tools Decision rules established Data displayed and graphed Multiple intervention rounds Intervention integrity Rate of Improvement/Slope Impact for Leadership If you are building your RtI Infrastructure, keep the end in mind. Issues like treatment integrity and procedural fidelity have to be planned from the beginning.

20. Academic achievement with respect to grade-level expectations. Academic achievement with respect to age-level expectations. Classroom performance with respect to grade-level expectations. Age- appropriate functional / intellectual skills Basic Psych. Processes Progress monitoring, CBM screening or criterion- referenced assessments MEAP Norm- referenced achievement tests Curriculum assessments Grades Teacher report Classroom observation Observation, interviews, IQ assessment See Pgs. 3-6 of OSPA article * for description of PSW models Basic Reading S N W Reading Fluency S N W Reading Comp. S N W Math Calc. S N W Math Prob. Solving S N W Written Express. S N W Oral Express. S N W Listening Comp. S N W

21. Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback What the OS Stakeholders Liked:  Emphasis on multiple types of data (testing, observation, etc.)  Emphasis on multiple types of assessments (norm reference, CR, MEAP)  Ease of training staff to implement  Ease of explaining SLD eligibility to parents. S N W Chart

22.  Teams were circling 4 weaknesses or 3 strengths anywhere on the PSW chart to achieve a “pattern”.  Multiple measures were in one box: How do you reflect this?  It lost the concept of inadequate achievement as an essential criteria.  With all the measures side by side, it appeared that every type of assessment had the same weight. Not each score in each area should be weighted the same.  Does not communicate the decision-making involved. Since the evidence is not listed, it was difficult to defend the team’s decision.  Students who met criteria for inadequate achievement in reading, writing, and math areas, but had no academic strengths were determined not eligible. This excluded our most profound students with SLD. This led to over-testing to find a strength. Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback S N W Chart

23.  Emphasis appeared to be on the “number of Strengths and Weakness” and less on the information that it reflected. There is no numerical formula that equals convergence.  The form became a barrier during MET discussions. Staff were digging back in their reports to find the actual score or more information because they were only left with an S N or W.  For instance, something could be a strength but there is a difference between achievement score of 96 and an achievement score of 116. Reducing a student to three categories of scores lost the richness of integrating the data. Variation of the PSW Graphic Organizer: Stakeholder Feedback S N W Chart

24. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria Key Ideas in OS Guidance: Criteria set for PSW that includes inadequate Achievement Data (OS SLD Guidance p. 7.13) Directions on how to Apply the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Option (see p. 7.4-7.12) Include relevant SLD patterns and Associated Characteristics that teams are using their data to compare (See SLD Guidance p. 7.5)

25. 25

28. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria Key Ideas in OS Guidance: Dimensions that the team should consider when establishing need. (See OS SLD Guidance p. 8.2)

29. Applying IDEA 2004 Eligibility Criteria Key Ideas in OS Guidance: Encourage both screening and in depth strategies to rule out exclusionary factors (see OS SLD Guidance p. 9.3) Expanded section of ELL with key decision points for the difference between ELL and SLD (see OS SLD Guidance p. 9.6 – 9.7).

34. OS SLD Team  Dr. Susan M. Koceski, School Psychologist248.209.2536  Abby Cypher-Kitchen, Special Education Consultant248.209.2577  Matt Korolden, Compliance Consultant248.209.2552  Carly Staunton, System Design Consultant248.209.2074  Karen Rockhold, Supervisor248.209.2286 Additional Training and Product Support  Bill Barley  Pam Allen  Deborah Norton